Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Culturally Responsive Differentiated
Instruction: Narrowing Gaps Between
Best Pedagogical Practices Benefiting All
Learners
by Lorri J. Santamaria — 2009
Background/Context: Because of its special education association, differentiated
instruction (DI) is a topic of concern for many educators working with culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD) learners, whereby bilingual, multicultural, and culturally
responsive teaching (CRT) is considered more appropriate for responding to cultural and
linguistic diversity. Furthermore, although the literature base on DI recognizes cultural
and linguistic diversity, it offers little in terms of ways to address these differences.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: The focus of this contribution is
to assist the educational community in recognizing pedagogical differences, while finding
common ground, in identifying complementary teaching practices for all students,
including culturally diverse students and English language learners (ELLs). CRT and DI
provide frameworks with which to discuss a reconciliation of both theory-to-practice
approaches with the hope that a common framework will better serve educators and
preservice teachers working with diverse students in complex multidimensional
classrooms.
Setting: This research took place at two CLD elementary schools serving ELLs in North
San Diego County, California. Schools were chosen because both are reaching high
levels of academic achievement and are closing achievement gaps, dispelling the myth
that high levels of poverty and/or CLD student populations lead to lower student
achievement.
Research Design: The research design employed was a qualitative case study.
Data Collection and Analysis: Over 5 years, observations, recorded conversations
among teachers, administrators, students, and parents, and supporting documents
collected from both schools were initially coded by researchers reading through
responses and documents. Using a qualitative analysis procedure, codes were generated
to identify data relevant to general features of DI and CRT. This was followed by more
focused coding wherein previous codes were reviewed, erroneous information was
eliminated, and smaller codes were then combined into larger ones. Finally, codes were
organized into larger themes identified and grounded by DI and CRT literature.
Conclusions/Recommendations: The best teaching practices are those that consider all
learners in a classroom setting and pay close attention to differences inherent to
academic, cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic diversity. Through a closer
examination of two different, seemingly distinct, theoretical models that have rarely been
linked or reconciled, educators may be able to determine what is appropriate for
particular groups of students in particular classrooms in particular locales. In
implementing school reform efforts to improve student achievement, reconciliation of
best teaching practices and the creation of hybrid pedagogies are critical in addressing a
future of an increasingly diverse country and global community.
INTRODUCTION
Challenges inherent in serving many students with different needs (e.g., academic,
cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, or otherwise) have been the preoccupation of
educators since the identification of academic achievement gaps in research studies and
by school districts. These gaps continue to be a focus in newspapers, magazines, lay
literature, and scholarly journals and have resulted in the development of school reform
efforts including gifted programs, response to intervention (RTI) models, and
individualized education plans (IEPs). Students who need additional academic assistance
are provided with remedial academic programs like resource classrooms, Open Court
(phonics-based reading program), and specific curricular federally initiated interventions
(e.g., Reading First). English language learners (ELLs) are further supported by bilingual,
dual-language immersion, and English as a second language (ESL) programs. In addition,
educationally disadvantaged students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are entitled
to federal and state assistance programs (e.g., Title I; free and reduced lunch).
Though federal and state-funded programs have directly given support to students from
specific backgrounds, the notion of cultural diversity has not been directly addressed and
is the one difference that overlaps with and impacts each of the other categories
identified. Cultural difference is the single most pervasive difference in U.S. schools and
until the early 1970s, by multicultural education, the most neglected. This lack of
attention to the needs of a growing number of students has caused educators to embark on
a series of discussions, including this article, to address culturally and linguistically
diverse (CLD) learners. These discussions must include ELLs because primary language
instruction programs (e.g., bilingual education) serving ELL needs are challenged and
have been restructured in the aftermath of the successful passage of English-only
legislation in states including California and Arizona.
Differentiated instruction (DI) is one way that educators have recently begun to provide
academic instruction to children with special needs mainstreamed into general education
classrooms (Tomlinson, 1999, 2000). Conversely, culturally responsive teaching (CRT)
is a collection of best teaching practices to enhance the academic success of students who
are culturally different in classroom settings (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 2001).
What the two approaches have in common is that they are both designed to provide
support for groups of students who have been historically unsuccessful in mainstream
general education classrooms for a variety of reasons. However, discussions around DI
and CRT have three important tensions between them that make them worthy of
scholarly consideration.
First, DI comes out of special education research and practice, in which CLD learners
have been historically misdiagnosed, misidentified, and, as a result, sometimes
overrepresented in programs serving students with high-incidence disabilities (e.g.,
learning disabilities, speech/ language impairments); conversely, CLD learners have been
underrepresented in gifted education programs (Artiles & Trent, 1997; Obiakor, 2007;
Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch, 1998; Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 2000).
Second, educators and researchers who work to serve needs of children of African,
indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, bi/multiracial, or Latin American descent with
pedagogical practices such as CRT do not want CLD students to be confused with
learners with disabilities (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Delpit, 1995). Therefore, these
professionals who practice CRT may hail DI as good teaching while simultaneously
rejecting the special education connotations currently associated with the practice.
Finally, although academically diverse students (e.g., learning disabled, gifted) and CLD
learners have ―special‖ needs and, in some cases, benefit from similar kinds of
instruction, there are profound differences between children for whom DI instruction was
targeted in the past and those children for whom the practice seems appropriate today.
That is, over time, DI has evolved from serving gifted learners to providing support to
children with high-incidence disabilities and, more recently, to teaching all learners from
culturally, linguistically, and academically diverse backgrounds within the current
context of the general education classroom (Berger, 1991; Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Van
Tassel-Baska, 1989; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998).
This contribution to the discussion of DI and its applications for CLD learners in general
education classrooms begins by considering definitions and origins, practical
applications, academic products, and theoretical frameworks, followed by gaps in the
research and literature. This same discussion will be duplicated for CRT. These two
considerations will provide a framework with which to discuss a reconciliation of the two
theory-to-practice approaches with the hope that a common framework will better serve
educators and preservice teachers working with diverse students in complex
multidimensional classrooms. The focus of this work is to assist the educational
community in recognizing pedagogical differences, while finding common ground, in
identifying complementary teaching practices for all students, including culturally diverse
and ELLs.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
DIFFERENTIATIED INSTRUCTION
Differentiated instruction defined
Differentiation can best be described as a group of common theories and practices
acknowledging student differences in background knowledge, readiness, language,
learning style, and interests, resulting in individually responsive teaching appropriate to
particular student needs (Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch, 1998; Vaughn et al., 2000).
Differentiated instruction (DI), sometimes referred to as mixed-ability teaching, is a
process-oriented approach most suitable to classrooms in which students have a wide
range of ability levels (Heacox, 2001; Winebrenner, 1992). The approach is rigorous,
relevant, flexible, and varied while intended to meet students at personal instructional
levels in efforts to maximize growth resulting in individual success (Lawrence-Brown,
2004; Santamaría & Thousand, 2004).
Upon closer inspection, professionals working in education may contend that DI has
borrowed liberally from the work of well-known scholarship (e.g., Bloom 1956; Bruner,
1966; Taba, 1962). These seminal works informing DI include scholarship on gifted
education practices, multiple intelligences theories, brain research, and, to some degree,
bilingual and multicultural education (Banks et al., 2001; Gardner, 1983, 1995, 1999;
Van Tassel-Baska, 1992). Recognition of student differences and the response to them
are socially constructed phenomena. As a result, DI is considered as much a
philosophical orientation as it is a best teaching practice or theory.
Differentiated instruction and best teaching practices
As early as 1982, educational researchers studying gifted learners in special education
settings acknowledged the importance of recognizing unique characteristics of students
when making decisions as to how the curriculum should be modified (Feldhusen, 1989,
1993; Feldhusen, Hansen, & Kennedy, 1989; Maker, 1982). More recently, according to
Carol Ann Tomlinson, who writes about DI in general education classrooms,
differentiation is characterized by the modification of three elements: content, process,
and product (2001). These same elements were identified earlier by June Maker (1982),
who later wrote about their application to gifted Latino and Native American students in
the Southwest United States (Maker & Schiever, 1989). Additionally, Maker‘s research
findings indicated the need to modify the school environment to allow for connections
between school experiences and students‘ greater world in support of CLD gifted learners
(Maker & Nielson, 1996).
In Tomlinson‘s (1999) conceptualization of DI (which does not include environmental
modifications) content refers to materials used to support instructional subject matter,
approaches to outlining tasks and objectives to goals, and beliefs that instruction is
concept focused and principle driven. Access to content is the central goal, as is
alignment to state standards and high-stakes standardized tests. Content addresses
teaching the same concepts with all students while providing adjustments to the degree of
complexity for the academic diversity of learners. For example, students with more
ability may be working on synthesis or application of a concept, whereas students who
find curriculum content challenging may be working with definitions,
comparisons/contrasts, or summarizations of the same concepts.
Process considerations focus on the use of cooperative groups that enable students to
work together to maximize and stimulate their learning and that of others in the group
(Johnson & Johnson, 2002). Opportunities for group interactions are a critical part of DI,
based on research that has determined that homogenous grouping supports more
advanced learners (Allan, 1991; Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Oakes, 1985, 1990; Slavin, 1990).
In most conceptions of DI, a variety of deliberate grouping strategies are used depending
on content, student projects, and ongoing evaluations to ensure the engagement and
success of all learners. Students are expected to interact with one another and work
together as they develop content knowledge regardless of ability level, with all learners
participating and being challenged appropriately.
Designing and managing DI can be a challenging task because students work at many
levels and at varying paces. To this end, Tomlinson (2001) has suggested strategies that
teachers can use to effectively maintain and manage classrooms within a DI framework.
Whereas in the past, differentiation did not focus on assessment (Berger, 1991; Maker,
1982; Van-Tassel-Baska, 1989), product currently includes initial and ongoing
assessment of student readiness and of student goals, with the focus on learners who are
active and responsible (Tomlinson, 1999, 2000; Vaughn et al., 2000). Product also
expects and requires students‘ active engagement in classrooms in which they are
working on the same content with varying tasks at different levels. Testing students prior
to content introduction, coupled with ongoing assessment, enables teachers to provide an
appropriate menu of choices and scaffolds within the many needs, interests, and abilities
of students in an academically diverse classroom. Appropriate student product also
allows numerous means of expression and alternative procedures (Berger), as well as
varying degrees of difficulty, types of evaluation, and scoring for a wide range of student
ability levels. Therefore, products vary as a result of DI, depending on what students are
actually able to accomplish.
Theoretical framework
Brain research and multiple intelligence theory provide the most salient theoretical
foundation for DI. Brain research responds to a variety of student academic readiness
skills, interests, and learning profiles, whereas multiple intelligence theory embraces the
notion of recognizing different kinds of ―smart‖ (Gardner, 1999; Kalbfleisch, 1987).
To provide an anchor for the ―how-to‖ and more practical application of DI, Tomlinson
(1998, 2000, 2001, 2003) has identified five guidelines situated within a framework with
the goal of making differentiation possible for general education classroom teachers to
attain The first guideline is clarification and focus of key concepts and generalizations.
This type of content-based clarification ensures that all learners acquire deep
foundational understandings of academic material being presented. The second guideline
is the use of assessments as teaching tools to extend (rather than merely measure)
instruction before, during (process), and after learning takes place (product).
Emphasizing critical and creative thinking in global lesson design is the third guideline,
which includes process-based student support as needed. This is followed by the fourth
guideline, which involves the process of engaging all learners within a variety of learning
tasks. The final guideline refers to providing a balance between teacher-assigned and
student-selected (process) tasks based on assessment data (product). Application of some
combination of these guidelines is suggested by the author, depending on students‘ needs
and instructional decisions regarding content, process, and product. These guidelines are
useful in looking for manifestations of DI in classrooms and serve as a reference to
compare differentiation with other teaching methods in the discussion of this article.
Table 1 illustrates ways in which content, process, and product relate to each other
conceptually (Tomlinson, 1995, 1999, 2000).
Table 1: Differentiated Instruction: Elements and Guidelines
Elements of Differentiated Instruction Guidelines for Implementing Differentiated
Instruction
Content
-Supporting instructional subject matter
- Providing central access
-Aligning tasks, instructional goals, and objectives
to high-stakes standardized tests
-Adjusting by degree of complexity for academic
diversity of learners
•
Clarifying key concepts and generalizations
Process
-Using flexible grouping and appropriate classroom
management
-Variety of grouping strategies depending on
content, student projects, and evaluations
-Students interacting with one another and working
together developing content regardless of ability
level
•
Emphasizing critical and creative thinking
•
Engaging all learners
•
Maintaining a balance between teacher-assigned and
student-selected tasks
Product
-Initial and ongoing assessment of student readiness
and goals
-Expectations and requirements for student
response (expected in classrooms where students
work on the same content with varying tasks at
different levels)
•
Using assessment as a teaching tool
As important elements of brain research and multiple intelligence theory—which,
incidentally, also provide the foundation for sheltered English instruction for ELLs—DI
describes the use of scaffolds to support student learning. Thus, some of the theoretical
roots of DI can be linked to constructivism and, more specifically, Lev Vygotsky‘s
(1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD), wherein students are capable of more than
expected when working at more difficult levels with appropriate scaffolding or support.
This support can come from more capable peers, teachers, or materials and is used to
complement the content, process, and product dimensions of DI to maximize student
outcomes for learners with varying degrees of proficiency (Santamaría, Fletcher, & Bos,
2002). There is a substantial body of more current research documenting the benefits of
scaffolded instruction for CLD learners and descriptions of students working within their
ZPDs in a variety of learning environments (Cole, 1996; Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003;
Morelli, Rogoff, Angelillo, 2003; Santamaría et al., 2002). These contributions further
substantiate this important and transcendent aspect of DI, linking it to multicultural
education practices.
Gaps in DI literature and research
A review of the literature on DI recognizes that instruction can and should be modified
for CLD learners. In responding to the needs of classroom diversity in which equity is
associated with historically marginalized groups (e.g., ELLs and CLD learners) and
excellence is associated with their mainstream peers, Tomlinson (2003) stated,
Schools must belong to all of these children. Educators often speak of equity as an issue
with children of the former group and excellence as an issue for the latter. In truth, equity
and excellence must be at the top of the agenda for all children. . . . We cannot achieve
excellence for children at risk of school failure without emphatically, systematically,
vigorously, and effectively seeing the development of their full potential. (p. 67)
Tomlinson, understanding and recognizing the importance of addressing cultural and
linguistic diversity, continued,
You can only care for the child when you understand—what it is like to be part of that
child‘s culture, what it is like to be unable to speak the language of the classroom, what it
is like to go home to a shelter every night . . . you can only do that [connect with learners‘
interests] when you know what they care about, what they do that gives them joy, what
they would wish for if they dared. (p. 67)
From the very beginning, with its roots in gifted education, DI recognized individual
student difference. Pioneer researchers like Maker and Nielson (1986) even sought ways
to change assessment for the identification of underrepresented CLD learners in gifted
education. Tomlinson certainly carries this spirit and sentiment. What differentiation
academicians fail to do, however, is provide practitioners with specific guidelines and
strategies on how to differentiate instruction for ELL and other CLD learners to support
their academic success. This gap provides the impetus for the current work and sets the
pedagogical stage for a closer look at ways in which culturally responsive pedagogy may
serve as a bridge to offer improved teaching practices for CLD learners in the
differentiated classroom.
PRINCIPLES FOR BEST TEACHING PRACTICES FOR CLD LEARNERS
Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) defined
CRT is a way of teaching used to empower students intellectually, socially, emotionally,
and politically by the use of cultural references that impart knowledge, skills, and
attitudes (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Valerie Ooka Pang (2005) added that ―CRT is an
approach to instruction that responds to the sociocultural context and seeks to integrate
the cultural content of the learner in shaping an effective learning environment‖ (p. 336).
Teachers who use this approach understand ways in which it makes their teaching more
effective (King, 1994).
In the early 1970s, responding to increasing classroom diversity in the United States,
educational researchers encouraged classroom teachers to use their students‘ language
and culture as resources rather than viewing them as barriers to learning (Abrahams &
Troike, 1972). Other researchers suggested the need for teachers to revisit their own
cultural orientations and preconceived notions of CLD learners (Aragon, 1973; Cuban,
1972). The hope was that teachers would critically question their own understandings of
diversity appropriately to better meet the unique needs of their students, restoring dignity
and pride along the way. Early work by Banks (1975), Forbes (1973), and Gay (1975)
resulted in the call for schools to change existing curriculum practices, including specific
ways to incorporate cultural and linguistic diversity within the curriculum for all content
areas. These changes, it was asserted, would result in ethnic content serving the purpose
of ―bringing academic tasks from the realm of the alien and the abstract into experiential
frames of reference‖ for all students (Gay, p. 181).
A sociocultural foundation lies at the heart of CRT. This is evidenced in research findings
on learners of Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, African American, Native American, and
Native Hawaiian descent (Au & Kawakami, 1994; Irvine, 2002; Litton, 1999; McCarty,
2002; Moll, 1992). Research findings in each case point to evidence that strongly
suggests socioculturally centered teaching, when traditional and nontraditional methods
for measuring academic achievement are used, results in varying degrees of improved
student achievement (Gay, 2000). Assisting learners within their ZPD is attained by the
use of interactive teaching strategies developed with students‘ ethnic identities, home
languages, and cultural backgrounds in mind. Of the utmost importance is the
nonimposition of a cultural hegemony that is espoused in all CRT approaches described
(Delpit, 1995; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2001; Moll, 1990; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
Geneva Gay (2000) identified six descriptive characteristics of CRT that have been
consistent with those offered by other multicultural researchers (Banks & Banks, 2004;
Chamot, 1995; Forbes, 1973; Fung, 1998; Jordan, 1995; King, 1994; Litton, 1999; Moll,
Amanti, Neff, & González, 1992). Researchers state that culturally responsive teaching is
validating, comprehensive, multidimensional, empowering, transformative, and
emancipatory. These characteristics have been helpful in identifying, discussing, and
improving CRT for practitioners and researchers alike.
Culturally responsive teaching and best teaching practices
Gloria Ladson-Billings‘s (2001) current research in teacher education programs follows
eight preservice teachers through their teacher preparation programs in the author‘s quest
to identify the best ways to support teachers to teach for diversity. From her findings,
several factors make instructional practices culturally responsive to the needs of student
learners. These include indicators of academic achievement, indicators of cultural
competence, and indicators of sociopolitical consciousness. The first set of characteristics
that Ladson-Billings (2001) identified includes indicators of academic achievement.
These are present in classrooms where teachers believe that all students are capable of
learning; where teachers explain what achievement is in the context of their classrooms;
where teachers know content, the students, and how to teach content to students; where
teachers support the development of students‘ critical conscience toward the curriculum;
and where teachers encourage academic achievement as a multidimensional concept.
The second set comprises indicators of cultural competence. These indicators determine
how teachers can improve their teaching practices. They include teachers‘ understanding
of culture and the role of culture in education; teachers taking responsibility for learning
about students‘ culture and community; the teachers‘ use of their students‘ culture as a
foundation for learning; and teachers‘ support of the flexible use of students‘ local and
global culture.
The last indicators are those of sociopolitical consciousness, as associated with issues of
social justice. These include teachers‘ knowledge of the larger sociopolitical context of
the school, community, nation, and world; teachers‘ investment in the public good;
teachers‘ development of academic experiences that connect students‘ perspectives to the
larger social context; and teachers‘ understanding that their students‘ success will lead to
an improved quality of life. These indicators provide a framework with which to consider
other aspects of CRT and to compare CRT to DI (Ladson-Billings, 2001).
Research findings on work with ELLs and their families reveal validated community
knowledge; stronger relationships between students, families, and teachers; enhanced
teaching-learning processes; reinforced teacher commitment; and classrooms where
educational excellence is supported as a result of Funds of Knowledge classroom
applications, specifically those that focus on family involvement (González et al., 1993;
Moll et al., 1992).
From observing classrooms where CRT has taken place, Ladson-Billings (1994, 2001)
has observed academic achievement, cultural competence, sociopolitical consciousness,
and active teaching methods, including teacher as facilitator, student-controlled
classroom discourse, and positive perspectives on parents and families of CLD learners.
Cultural sensitivity and reshaping the curriculum to embed high expectations are other
results of CRT as observed by Ladson-Billings (1994). Adding to the positive results of
CRT, Gay (2000) found that this kind of teaching validates learners by incorporating their
cultures and frames of reference into existing curriculum, thereby lifting the ―veil‖ of
authority assumed by the historical renditions of the way that ―truth‖ has been taught in
U.S. schools up until now. Table 2 shows the ways in which Gay‘s (2000) descriptive
characteristics of CRT and Moll‘s Funds of Knowledge (1990, 1992) relate to Ladson-
Billings‘s (2001) indicators in relation to teacher behaviors in classrooms with CLD
learners.
Table 2: Comparison of Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices
Indicators of CRT (Ladson-
Billings, 2001)
Descriptive Characteristics of
CRT
(Gay, 2000)
Funds of Knowledge (Moll et al.,
1992)
Academic achievement Teacher:
1. Presumes students capable.
2. Delineates achievement in
classroom context.
3. Knows content, learner, and
learners‘ style.
4. Supports curricular critical
consciousness.
5. Encourages academic
achievement. (p. 74)
CRT is empowering Teacher encourages academic
competence, personal competent,
courage, and the will to act (p. 32).
CRT is transformative Teacher recognizes existing
strength and accomplishments of
students and enhancing them
further in the instructional process
(p. 33).
1. Teachers identify knowledge,
skills, and practices that enable
modest-income families to live
their lives.
2. Teaching learning process is
improved.
3. Educational excellence
supported.
Cultural competence Teacher:
1. Understands culture and role of
culture in education.
2. Takes responsibility for learning
about students‘ culture and
community.
3. Uses students‘ culture as basis
for learning.
4. Promotes flexible use of
students‘ local and global cultures
(p. 97).
CRT is validating Teacher uses cultural knowledge,
prior experiences, frames of
reference, and performance styles
of CLD learners to make learning
more relevant and effective (p. 29).
CRT is comprehensive Teachers teach the whole child (p.
30).
CRT is multidimensional Teachers make use of
encompassing curriculum, content,
learning contexts, classroom
climate, student-teacher
relationships, instructional
techniques, and performance
assessments (p. 31).
1. Teachers enter students’ homes
as learners, conducting household
interviews and observations.
2. Later, teachers reflect on the
meaning of their findings.
3. Teachers collaborate to devise
appropriate teaching practices.
4. Relationships between
students' families and teachers
are strengthened
Sociopolitical consciousness Teacher:
1. Knows larger sociopolitical
context (school, community,
nation, world).
CRT is emancipatory Teacher lifts the veil of presumed
absolute authority from
conceptions of scholarly truths
typically taught in schools (p. 35).
1. Teachers reexamine practices
in terms of their influence on
student participation.
2. Teacher commitments are
2. Has investment in public good.
3. Plans and implements academic
experiences.
4. Believes students‘ success has
consequences in teacher‘s life (p.
120).
reinforced.
3. Community knowledge is
validated.
In addition to key features and characteristics of CRT summarized in Table 2,
heterogeneous cooperative grouping is a common best teaching practice associated with
culturally responsive teaching. From research findings presented in her book
Dreamkeepers, Gloria Ladson-Billings (1994) describes cooperative learning as one of
the key teaching methods implemented by African American teachers working
successfully with African American students to improve academic achievement. As
described by other research studies that focus on the benefits of cooperative groups,
cooperative learning is seen as enabling students to work together to maximize and
stimulate learning for all group members (Johnson & Johnson, 2002). Student-centered
instruction is fundamental to CRT, and it is this notion that drives socially mediated
learning, one aspect of cooperative groups (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Goldstein, 1999;
Vygotsky, 1978). Furthermore, cooperative groups foster opportunities for students to
learn from a variety of people, including teachers, peers, and other school community
members (Santamaría et al., 2002).
From their research in working with Latino students, Rivera and Zehler (1991) found that
student-centered work in cooperative groups creates interdependence among students and
teachers. Adding to important findings by Padron, Waxman, and Rivera (Padron &
Rivera, 1999, Padron, Waxman, & Rivera, 2002), this development of interdependence
through cooperative learning, although appropriate for all students, is even more critical
for ELLs and Latinos who may face socioeconomic, linguistic, and cultural
disadvantages in an educational system created for the mainstream population. These
authors suggest that ―through collaborative practices, they [ELLs] can develop the social
skills and inter-group relations essential to academic success‖ (Padron et al.).
These examples demonstrate why heterogeneous grouping is favored within CRT
pedagogy. Heterogeneous groups enable students to learn in different ways or share
viewpoints and perspectives in given situations based on their own cultural and social
experiences; active participation and learning are the net result (Nieto, 2004).
There are some who assert, however, that tracking and homogeneous grouping are best
practices for higher achieving students in mainstream settings (Allan, 1991; Slavin, 1986,
1990). These claims have yet to be supported in the research on classroom grouping
practices, which clearly states that heterogeneous grouping does not limit academic
achievement of the academically talented and that all students benefit from
heterogeneous grouping practices (Weinstein, 1996). What is clear, however, is that
students disproportionately placed in low-ability groups or tracks do not benefit from
homogeneous groups (Golnick & Chinn, 2004).
Theoretical framework
Culturally responsive teaching can be considered one way to meet the needs of all
learners, a core multicultural principle (Golnick & Chinn, 2004). CRT affirms students‘
cultures, viewing them as transformative and emancipatory strengths (rather than
deficits); incorporates students‘ cultures in the teaching process, thus empowering them
to take ownership of their learning; and leads to increased future participation in societal
activities. In terms of questioning hegemonic practices and participatory democratic
transformation from one‘s own educational experience, critical pedagogy can be
considered the most broad theoretical foundation of CRT (Freire, 1985). CRT
acknowledges that student achievement is influenced by home and community cultures
by ways in which these attributes play out in learners‘ educational, sociopolitical, and
historical contexts. In short, CRT is based on the premise that culture profoundly
influences the ways in which children learn (Smith, 1998).
Gloria Ladson-Billings (2001) calls her theoretical framework ―culturally relevant
pedagogy‖ (p. 144). She bases this framework on the propositions that successful
teachers (1) focus on students‘ academic achievement, (2) develop students‘ cultural
competence, and (3) foster students‘ sense of sociopolitical consciousness. Ladson-
Billings used these three propositions to guide her study of eight teachers to identify the
indicators of CRT found in the first column of Table 2. Geneva Gay (2000), on the other
hand, takes a more global theoretical perspective when it comes to CRT. She looks to a
sense of ―story‖ for assertions about CLD learners in schools, the power of caring for
these children, and the power of relationship building in teaching them. Gay also focused
on mediated discourse, including dialectical variance, the importance of cultural
congruence, and shifting paradigms of practice when teaching. Gay‘s findings serve as
the theoretical foundations on which to expand and enhance teaching practices of those
working with CLD learners (see Table 2, column 2). Vygotskian ideology and
sociocultural notions of an inquiry-oriented approach to professional development are
where Moll and associates find their theoretical basis (Table 2, column 3). This latter
extension of culturally responsive teaching seeks to improve participation and increase
learner interest by drawing on students‘ homes and communities as resources as the
essence of CRT (González et al., 1993; Moll et al., 1992; Moll & Greenberg, 1990).
Gaps in culturally responsive teaching research and literature
Although the guiding principles and descriptions of CRT are inclusive and
comprehensive in terms of CLD students, they fall short of specifically recognizing those
with varying levels of English language development (ELD). In the United States, this is
unfortunate because many children who come from culturally diverse backgrounds enter
classrooms with a second or third language. CRT‘s emphasis on culture without much
attention to linguistic difference is important to acknowledge because it is students‘
language acquisition that is often the principal source of misunderstanding in schools.
This misunderstanding can result in frequent special education misdiagnoses and
inappropriate placement in high-incidence disability support settings, such as speech and
language and/or resource specialist programs. For ELLs, assessment to determine
eligibility for special education services is often in the form of English language
proficiency and acculturation tests by default (Baca & Cervantes, 2004; Obiakor, 2007).
In many cases, these assessments have been found to be culturally biased and result in
inaccurate and inappropriate special education placement of other CLD learners,
independent of language difference (Obiakor).
Moll and his colleagues (1990, 1992) make the most mention of language in their
valuable contributions to CRT. In this work, linguistic competence is referred to when
teachers become more culturally proficient by conducting household interviews and
making observations by way of visiting students‘ homes (Moll et al., 1992; Moll &
Greenberg, 1990). The only way for teachers to tap into the Funds of Knowledge of
ELLs with Spanish-speaking parents or caregivers, however, is if researchers are able to
speak the first language of their students and families. The identification of this deficit in
CRT pedagogy and theory is important because it sheds light on an area in which
development is needed if educators are to serve all CLD learners (Santamaría, 2003).
NARROWING GAPS BETWEEN DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION AND
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE TEACHING WITH COMPLEMENTARY
PEDAGOGY FOR ALL LEARNERS
Up front and in keeping with the sociopolitical, historical, and educational context in
which educators teach and learn, Tomlinson (2003) acknowledged that DI needs to be
modified to respond to the needs of CLD learners. Because of this need, she supports
ESL instruction for children learning English. Typically, though, DI addresses student
diversity in terms of learners‘ academic differences (i.e., abilities, levels of readiness,
learning profiles) with strategies and pedagogy responsive to cognitive differences. In the
DI literature, there is some attention given to students‘ prior knowledge, talents, and
cultural and linguistic diversity, but these differences are not the central focus of the
teaching approach (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003).
When reviewing current scholarly contributions featuring DI, a shift in language can be
noted that appears to be responsive to growing numbers of CLD students in U.S. schools
(Guild & Garger, 1998; Hollaway, 2000; Strong, Perini, Silver, & Thomas, 2004;
Theroux; 2001; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). Academia is beginning to respond to the
apparent needs of CLD students in inclusive classrooms in order to discuss detracking
and to address the needs of diverse student populations with responsive, personalized,
and differentiated classrooms (Tomlinson, 2000; Tomlinson & Allan).
The most current work along these lines speaks to the wide diversity found in classrooms.
Notable extensions include specific content, internationalism, and reference to excellence
and equity in response to student differences (Strong et al., 2004; Theroux, 2001;
Tomlinson, 2001; 2003). Though DI terminology is beginning to sound contemporary
and sensitive to the needs of all learners, its foundation and core—a focus on responding
to academic diversity—has not changed. This is evidenced by the acknowledgement of
diversity without a concomitant shift in pedagogical practices that would benefit CLD
learners, including ELLs at varying levels of English acquisition.
Although DI has been anecdotally documented as a panacea addressing ―increasing levels
of student diversity‖ in public schools in the United States, a very important question
remains: Is DI appropriate for students who are culturally and linguistically diverse who
may also be learning English? More important, how does DI complement principles for
teaching CLD learners? A matrix relating DI to CRT provides the beginning of a
framework for this discussion (see Table 3).
Table 3: Comparison of Differentiated Instruction and Culturally Responsive
Teaching
Elements and Guidelines
of DI (Tomlinson, 1999,
2000, 2001, 2003)
Indicators of CRT
(Ladson-Billings, 2001)
Descriptive
Characteristics of CRT
(Gay, 2000)
Funds of Knowledge
(Moll & Greenberg,
1990; Moll et al., 1992)
Content Teacher:
1. Ensures that provision
of access is central.
2. Clarifies key concepts
and generalizations.
3. Adjustment to student
diversity addressed.
4. Supports subject
matter.
Academic achievement Teacher:
1. Presumes students
capable.
2. Delineates achievement
in classroom context.
3. Knows content, learner,
and learners‘ style.
4. Supports curricular
critical consciousness.
5. Encourages academic
achievement (p. 74).
CRT is empowering Teacher encourages
academic competence,
personal competent,
courage, and the will to
act (p. 32).
CRT is transformative Teacher recognizes
existing strength and
accomplishments of
students and enhancing
them further in the
instructional process (p.
33).
1. Teachers identify
knowledge, skills, and
practices that enable
modest income families to
live their lives.
2. Teaching learning
process is improved.
3. Educational
excellence supported.
Process Teacher:
1. Emphasizes critical
and creative thinking with
appropriate management.
2. Provides flexible
opportunities for students
working together,
engaging all learners.
Product Teacher:
1. Adjusts expectations
and requirements for
students appropriately.
Cultural competence Teacher:
1. Understands culture
and role of culture in
education.
2. Takes responsibility for
learning about students‘
culture and community.
3. Uses students‘ culture
as basis for learning.
4. Promotes flexible use
of students‘ local and
global cultures (p. 97).
CRT is validating Teacher uses cultural
knowledge, prior
experiences, frames of
reference, and
performance styles of
CLD learners to make
learning more relevant
and effective (p. 29).
CRT is comprehensive Teachers teaching the
whole child (p. 30).
CRT is multidimensional Teachers making use of
encompassing curriculum,
content, learning contexts,
classroom climate, student
1. Teachers enter
students’ homes as
learners conducting
household interviews and
observations.
2. Later teachers reflect
on the meaning of their
findings.
3. Teachers collaborate
to devise appropriate
teaching practices
4. Relationships between
students families and
teachers are
strengthened
teacher relationships,
instructional techniques,
and performance
assessments (p. 31).
These concepts are not
addressed in DI.
Sociopolitical
consciousness Teacher:
1. Knows larger
sociopolitical context
(school, community,
nation, world).
2. Has investment in
public good.
3. Plans and implements
academic experiences.
4. Believes students‘
success has consequences
in teachers‘ life (p.120).
CRT is emancipatory Teacher lifts the veil of
presumed absolute
authority from
conceptions of scholarly
truths typically taught in
schools (p. 35).
1. Teachers reexamine
practices in terms of their
influence on student
participation.
2. Teacher commitments
are reinforced.
3. Community
knowledge is validated.
Principles for teaching CLD learners and guidelines for implementing DI can balance one
another to provide a realistic reconciliation of these best teaching practices to benefit a
greater number of children. DI and CRT share common elements and are both considered
emergent best research-based teaching practices. A closer look, however, shows
distinctions between the two, suggesting that certain teaching strategies are preferred over
others while simultaneously suggesting ways in which each approach can be improved by
incorporating aspects of the other.
MINI-CASE STUDY
Purpose
For the past 5 years, in my own professional practice I have been fortunate to explore the
interface between DI and pedagogy responsive to CLD learners. These explorations have
taken place as a result of collaborative partnerships developed by my working as a faculty
member at the local university with nearby elementary schools serving CLD learners.
The partnerships I will describe are with two pre-K–5 schools in the same North San
Diego County, California, school district, Bienvenidos Elementary and Xavier
Elementary. These schools exemplify complementary best teaching practices employing
DI, coupled with culturally responsive teaching. Schools were chosen as exemplars for
this article because both schools are reaching high levels of academic achievement and
are closing achievement gaps, dispelling the myth that high levels of poverty and/ or
CLD student populations lead to lower student achievement.
Bienvenidos Elementary School
Bienvenidos is a small school with a total enrollment of 318 students. Many of the
students are from socioeconomically disadvantaged households (47.3%), and 32.7%
participate in free or reduced school lunch programs. Almost half (41.2%) of the students
attending are Latino of Mexican descent, and 18.6% of the students enrolled are
considered ELLs at varying levels of English language development (ELD). Other CLD
learners include children of Asian/Pacific Islander (5.1%) and African American (4.7%)
descent. Less than 10% (7.9%) of the student population identify themselves as Other.
Since 2002, ELL and CLD learners have exceeded minimum annual yearly progress
targets on state and national standardized assessments and have shown steady increase in
grade-level proficiency, as have all other subgroups at the school.
As visiting faculty from the local university, I was invited to partner with the principal
and teachers at Bienvenidos to respond to the special education needs of the school
during the 2002–2003 school year. My work involved assisting the school by modeling
and supporting DI practices ―to provide equitable access to the core curriculum for a
culturally, linguistically, and academically diverse student body‖ (Santamaría &
Thousand, 2004, p. 13). In this capacity, I spent one day a week at the school for the
entire school year.
Xavier Elementary School
With a total student enrollment of 499, Xavier is considered a neighborhood school. At
this school, most students (68%) are socioeconomically disadvantaged. About half
(53.7%) participate in free and reduced lunch programs. The vast majority (70.1%) of the
students attending are Latino of Mexican descent, and almost half (43.3%) are considered
ELLs at varying levels of ELD. Other CLD learners at the school include children of
Asian/Pacific Islander (1.2%), African American (1.2%), and Other (5%) descent.
Similar to Bienvenidos Elementary School, ELLs and CLD learners, since 2002, have
exceeded minimum annual yearly progress targets on state and national standardized
assessments and have shown a steady increase in grade-level proficiency, as have all
other subgroups at the school.
My work at Xavier during the 2004–2006 school years was primarily to assist the
principal, teachers, and community to transform the neighborhood school with declining
enrollment into a district magnet school to attract families outside of the neighborhood.
Our goals were to increase school diversity while maintaining the cultural, linguistic, and
academic integrity of the campus. After researching magnet opportunities and conducting
multiple district and community meetings, we opted to enter into the process and
professional development toward becoming an International Baccalaureate Primary Years
Programme school. We are currently in the application and review process, with growing
interest and waiting lists for several grade levels. On average, I spent 4 hours a week at
the site over two academic school years.
Data analysis
Observations, recorded conversations among teachers, administrators, students and
parents, and supporting documents collected from both schools were initially coded by
my reading through responses and documents. Using a qualitative analysis procedure, I
generated codes identifying data relevant to general features of DI and CRT (Glesne,
2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). I then proceeded with more focused coding wherein I
reviewed previous codes, eliminated erroneous information, and then combined smaller
codes into larger ones. Finally, I was able to organize codes into larger themes identified
and grounded by DI and CRT literature (see Table 4).
Case study findings are presented in a matrix showing teaching examples that satisfy both
DI and CRT simultaneously, and areas in which only one of the two methods was
evidenced (see Table 4). This information is provided to elicit a discussion of the findings
and provide school and university educators interested in the application and
reconciliation of these two different teaching practices examples of what they might look
like when brought together to serve many different types of learners.
Table 4: Classroom Evidence of Guidelines for Differentiated Instruction and
Indicators of Culturally Responsive Teaching
Guidelines for DI and
Indicators of CRT
Academic achievement Cultural competence Sociopolitical
consciousness
Clarifying key concepts
(content
Teachers develop
culturally responsive
thematic mini-units
delineating achievement
in classroom contexts.
The units feature
persuasive writing to
prepare students to take
upcoming district-created
criterion-referenced
writing assessment of
five-paragraph essay
Teachers demonstrate
understanding of culture
and the role of culture in
education in terms of
having ELLs of Mexican
descent think critically
about and respond to
declining numbers of
Latino students who
graduate from high
school, and declining
numbers of those who
continue their education
beyond high school.
Teachers have investment
in greater good,
evidenced by their
intention to encourage
students to reflect about
the importance of higher
education. The hope is
that students would be
more likely to ―own‖ the
idea of higher education
having a positive impact
on their lives and the
teachers‘, rather than
having the same
information imposed on
students on the teachers‘
terms.
Emphasizing critical and
creative thinking
(process)
Teacher delineates
achievement in classroom
context and encourages
academic achievement by
posting goals, objectives,
and standards on the
board or student desks
using words or icons.
Teacher demonstrates
using student culture as a
basis for learning, with
verbal praise for their
ability to think and learn
in two languages.
Teacher takes
responsibility for learning
about students’ culture
Teacher shows evidence
of planning and
implementing academic
experiences by
incorporating
opportunities for students
to work on higher order
thinking tasks like
analysis and application.
and community when
students are encouraged to
share their families‘
seasonal celebrations.
Engaging all learners
(process)
Teacher inclusion of CLD
assistants contributed to
nonprejudiced attitudes
within students and
connected learning to their
lives, thereby supporting
curricular critical
consciousness.
Teacher includes CLD
class helpers, university
students, and parents,
promoting flexible use of
students’ local and global
cultures.
Teacher demonstrates
knowledge of larger
sociopolitical context of
students and invests in
public good by providing
students with
opportunities to interact
with CLD and people with
different abilities than
they have.
Balance between
student- and teacher-
selected tasks (process)
Teacher assumes that
ELLs in primary grades
are capable of discussing
self-selected current
events from the
newspaper.
Teacher asks students,
based on pictures, what
they think news stories
written in Spanish or
English are about from
their personal
perspectives, using
students’ culture as a
basis for learning.
Teacher praises depth of
student questions and
interest in Palestine
bombings, implying her
belief that student success
in global understanding
has consequences in her
own life.
Using assessment as a
teaching tool (product)
Teacher administers
pretests and posttests as
required by the district in
the areas of reading,
writing, and math.
With the exception of the
five-paragraph essay
featured in Clarifying Key
Concepts, these
assessments were not
related to the curriculum
and teaching described.
Teacher makes use of
performance test data as
baseline information for
working with students.
Teacher knows that for
students to become active
participants in society,
they must do well on
assessments; uses data to
inform her teaching; and
teaches students test-
taking strategies as part of
her curriculum.
Discussion
DI guidelines are used to frame the discussion. These include teachers (1) clarifying key
concepts (e.g., content), (2) emphasizing critical and creative thinking (e.g., process), (3)
engaging all learners (e.g., process), (4) maintaining balance between teacher-assigned
and student-selected tasks (e.g., process), and (5) using assessment as a teaching tool
(e.g., product). The guidelines are then cross referenced to indicators of CRT, including
academic achievement (AA), cultural competence (CC), and sociopolitical consciousness
(SC) as described by Ladson-Billings in her pedagogy for teaching diversity (2001).
Some of the classroom examples that illustrate both DI and CRT are briefly described in
the matrix (Table 4). Even though evidence of each DI characteristic was found in the
data from both schools, alternating evidence collected is crafted to tell composite
―stories‖ from the two sites featured.
Clarifying key concepts (content)
In what way do teachers support instructional subject matter, ensure access for all
learners, align academic tasks, goals, and objectives to standardized tests, and scaffold
content complexity for diverse learners? In this example gleaned from data collected at
Bienvenidos Elementary School, student access to the core curriculum, goals, and
objectives was achieved by teachers on the fifth-grade team in their teaching of
persuasive writing through a five-paragraph essay. This mini-unit was developed to
prepare students to take the upcoming district-created criterion-referenced writing
assessment (AA). Teachers supported subject matter by providing an authentic model
essay of the same topic by a previous fifth grader with similar cultural and linguistic traits
as the students at Bienvenidos. The topic of the essay was culturally responsive to the
experiences of the students in that the goal of the work was to persuade readers as to why
education beyond high school is desirable, necessary, and attainable (AA). The topic was
also culturally responsive in terms of having Latino ELLs of Mexican descent think
critically about and respond to declining numbers of Latino students who graduate from
high school and the dismal number of those who continue their education beyond high
school (CC). It was the teachers‘ intention to encourage students to reflect and think on
their own about the importance of higher education, with the hope that students would
more likely ―own‖ the information. By allowing students to grasp learning through their
own cultural filter, the teachers were able to make a positive impact on their students‘
lives rather than simply transferring their own knowledge to the students (SC).
Teachers began the weeklong project by encouraging students to generate ideas about
what they already knew about persuading people, education beyond high school, and
writing five-paragraph essays from their background knowledge and prior experience.
Teachers provided scaffolds in the form of writing frames to support students‘ writing
processes. At the end of the week, students were asked to document what they had
learned from the exercise. As a follow-up to the lesson, students used their papers to
inspire role-plays, acting as either the persuader or the individual being persuaded.
Throughout the project, work was differentiated for students in terms of level of ELD,
learning disability, learning style, and other recognized academic diversity. Material was
presented in written form, orally, and supported by a T-graph (for brainstorming), and
written responses were supported by paragraph frames or sentence starters for students
who needed the assistance. The teachers presented pertinent information several times as
necessary and checked for understanding with frequent questioning and opportunity for
students to orally process instruction in small groups before going on. Scaffolds of many
kinds were made available to students during the week, including scaffolded materials,
teacher modeling, opportunities for students to work with more proficient peers or
classroom helpers, environmental print, and the opportunity for students at beginning
ELD levels to work in their primary language as a scaffold to writing in English.
In other Bienvenidos classrooms and in relation to making important academic concepts
clear, curriculum-relevant music was played throughout the day to purposefully assist
students using DI in learning vocabulary, recognizing certain sounds, or learning new
math content. Music was also used to motivate students to begin academic tasks.
Sometimes it was used to calm students or to cue them to transition from activity to
activity or to line up for lunch, recess, or dismissal (CC).
Schoolwide at Bienvenidos, there was wide cultural and linguistic diversity in the
selections of poems and stories that students read, further complementing each content
area. Conversations in many classrooms operated on levels that served to clarify key
concepts and generalizations encountered in student learning. Other DI guidelines evident
in these observations included the use of assessment as a teaching tool in the teaching of
new concepts based on individual student data gleaned from pretest results.
Emphasizing critical and creative thinking (process)
How do teachers use appropriate classroom management while students interact with one
another on content regardless of ability level? Xavier Elementary School provided prime
examples of ways in which teachers in all classrooms could be heard telling students how
wonderful and intelligent they were based on individual students‘ strengths (Gay, 2000;
King, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1994). They often did this by reminding students that as
bilingual citizens, they were ―twice as smart‖ as many other students in the world who
may only be able to speak one language (CC).
Teachers at Xavier made it clear to their students that they expected each and every one
of them to succeed. They did this by posting objectives, goals, and standards on the board
using child-friendly language and icons for most activities (AA). The teachers also
encouraged students to share their cultural experiences (i.e., different things that their
families do, or not, to celebrate seasonal celebrations; CC).
The teachers also incorporated higher order thinking opportunities into all content areas,
with emphasis on synthesis, creativity, and application for the young learners (SC). In
one classroom, a teacher had a poster of Bloom‘s Taxonomy posted above her desk to
remind her to differentiate her instructional practice and expectations for student products
instead of reverting to more mundane and traditional displays of intelligence (e.g., recall,
summary, description).
Throughout the observation, each teacher used flexible grouping and a variety of
grouping strategies depending on content, projects, and evaluations, with the intent of
addressing students‘ academic and affective complex thinking skills at the same time. For
example, parts of math or language arts lessons were individualized but only after there
had been significant whole- and small-group work to prepare students for independent
work (CC). Learning experiences in these classrooms appeared to be fair for all learners.
When academically based games were played and evaluations administered, they were
based on group dynamics and previous student responses. Sometimes small groups of
students worked at similar levels, but at other times, groups were heterogeneous. In one
fifth-grade classroom, there were two students in the class with learning disabilities, but
with careful modeling by the teacher, the potential for peer teasing was eliminated. There
was little, if any, individual competition in the classrooms observed. Students learned
very quickly that they could all be winners and experience success at some level in their
classrooms, even for the most academically challenged students. Even more important,
student successes were celebrated daily (SC).
Engaging all learners (process)
How are positive interactions among students fostered and managed? One way that a
Bienvenidos teacher accomplished this was by deliberately recruiting culturally and
linguistically diverse student helpers, candidates, and parents for work in her classroom.
These extended members of the classroom community communicated high academic
expectations to students, potentially resulting in prejudice reduction for everyone
involved in the class (AA). Having positive academic role models to relate to and identify
with served to engage the students and maintain their motivation to learn (AA).
For example, in this second-grade classroom, Cherie was a student helper who was also
biracial; her mother is White and her father is African American. Another student helper,
Yesi, was an ELL of Mexican descent. Both of these fifth-grade girls, former students of
the classroom teacher, have specific learning disabilities. Most parent helpers in the
classroom were Spanish speakers of Mexican descent, and the two university student
teachers were White. A high school student assistant working in the class, Hannah, was
of Chinese descent.
Helpers were in the classroom at different times, but every day there was some assistance
for the entire school year. These individuals assisted the teacher with teaching
responsibilities and offered their support and affirmation to the children. Their inclusion
in the classroom contributed to nonprejudiced attitudes within the children and helped
students connect learning to their lives in child-friendly ways (CC). As a result, prejudice
reduction took place all day long as students had opportunities to interact with peers and
older helpers of different ethnic groups and special needs in positive ways. In addition, by
designing educational materials to reflect students‘ individual differences, teachers
enabled students to be exposed to positive images of themselves (SC; Gay, 2000).
Balance between student and teacher selected tasks (process)
In what ways do teachers balance what they want to teach with what students want to
learn? An example of this balance was provided with a daily activity observed in a first-
grade classroom at Xavier. Every day after lunch, students spent about 30 minutes
looking through and discussing an English, Spanish, or bilingual newspaper that students
brought from home (AA). The entire class gathered around as the teacher flipped through
the paper and pointed out various current events, asking students predictive questions
about the content based on the pictures embedded within individual stories. These
opportunities introduced additional cultural and linguistic diversity to the children
because stories surveyed involved people from different countries representing different
cultures and languages (CC). One day, as students began to discuss the current events of
the day, a story about a bombing in Palestine appeared. Based on the pictures, students
asked questions such as, ―Where is that [Palestine]? What is a bomb? And, why did
‗they‘ use a bomb?‖ The teacher praised students‘ critical thinking skills and then
promptly responded by pulling out a globe, pointing out the country where the atrocity
took place, and asking students for their definitions of a bomb. She clarified their
definitions, which largely came from cartoons and the events around 9/11. The teacher
then went on to the next story, providing a smooth transition into the next academic area
of focus (SC). In other classrooms, teachers integrated thematic instruction to interrelate
ideas and information within and across subject matter guided by the inquiry process.
These processes were consistently framed by California language arts or mathematics
standards.
Using assessment as a teaching tool (product)
How do teachers incorporate the use of testing as means to teach? The teachers at both
schools are mandated by the district to administer pretests and posttests to their students.
These district-created criterion-referenced tests are in reading, writing, and math content
areas. Teachers use results from the pretests as baseline data not only to inform their DI
teaching practices but also to glean information about their students‘ learning styles,
language proficiency, and cultures. Even though assessment is not directly mentioned in
the indicators of CRT (AA; CC), teachers at both sites felt that it was important for their
students to know that assessments would be a normal part of the learning process.
Consequently, teachers gave students a few minutes each day to practice test-taking skills
(e.g., filling in bubbles, answering multiple-choice questions, developing and responding
to rubrics; SC).
Additionally, many classrooms at the schools regularly established and communicated
individual and group learning goals for all students. Goals could be found posted on
whiteboards, taped to students‘ desks, or on PowerPoint slides and overhead
transparencies. At both sites, teachers were observed collecting multiple sources of
information to assess student learning. Many students were involved to some degree in
assessing their own academic progress, even kindergarteners, by way of bar graphs.
Finally, educators at both sites actively communicated with students and families about
student progress. This communication often extended into the community at board
meetings and occasionally at the university as teachers made presentations as part of their
pursuits toward advanced degrees in various disciplines.
Case study summary
Using assessment as a teaching tool is the most important guideline for DI that is not
explicitly addressed or developed in CRT. If CRT incorporated more evaluative
indicators, the practice could be more practical for mainstream teachers in search of
pedagogy to suit all learners. By the same token, guidelines for DI are not explicit in
addressing practices that benefit ELLs and other CLD students. For educators interested
in finding ways to meet the needs of ELL and CLD learners, they can look to this case
study for some examples based on the central elements of DI instruction.
From this brief snapshot in which overall student achievement improved based on pre-
and post-assessment data as evidenced by steady increases in grade-level proficiencies
over five years in all subgroups, it appears that DI and CRT can function as
complementary teaching practices. In this mini-case study, I was able to find evidence of
both DI and CRT in qualitative data samples. These preliminary findings indicate a
strong case for DI and CRT to be considered as complementary teaching practices.
Although the sample is small and case oriented, it does provide hope for reconciling these
two best teaching practices that seem exclusive to each other upon first consideration.
Furthermore, the literature supporting each practice begins to sound similar when
indicators of each teaching practice are compared and cross-referenced.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Even after considering DI and CRT and having identified them in these composite
classrooms at two schools, the question still remains: Is DI inclusive of, and thereby
appropriate for, CLD learners? If educators are to take the theoretical and descriptive
information provided herein, they can readily incorporate aspects of culturally relevant
pedagogy to DI with confidence. By doing so, they can make content more accessible to
students who are CLD, thus increasing students‘ opportunities to experience increased
classroom success. DI can be appropriate for CLD learners when it is purposefully
adjusted to respond to cultural and linguistic diversity in content, process, and product. If,
though, educators practice elements and guidelines for DI by only acknowledging student
differences without actually changing their practice (primarily because there are no
guidelines on how to do so), teachers run the risk of practicing colorblind pedagogy.
Although this type of instruction responds to academic diversity, it is exclusive and does
not completely benefit children who are CLD. Providing authentic examples for ways in
which to adjust DI so that it is increasingly culturally responsive will allow educators to
develop and extend appropriate pedagogies to larger numbers of children with the most
diverse needs. This approach is a fresh one and clearly suggests that teachers ―take
different paths to meet learners where they are‖ (Randi & Corno, 2005).
There are several lessons embedded in this consideration of two seemingly distinct
teaching practices. The first is the obvious realization that both DI and CRT exist as a
result of the needs of marginalized learners not being met in mainstream general
education classrooms. The main difference is that DI provides guidelines addressing
academic diversity, whereas CRT does the same for cultural and (sometimes) linguistic
diversity. Another lesson to be learned is that DI complements CRT when attention is
given to the needs of cultural and/or linguistic students, resulting in enhanced learning
and student motivation. The third lesson to be learned is that teachers of ELLs and CLD
learners need to learn more about special education processes so they are able to provide
best teaching practices and support for diverse students (with DI as a pedagogical
framework) without submitting them to special education labels and programs. Finally,
all teachers need to learn how to distinguish between learning differences/problems and
cultural/linguistic diversity to avoid confusing these issues when meeting the needs of all
learners. Conversely, DI doesn‘t make students who benefit from the practice any more
disabled than CRT makes students who benefit from it culturally and linguistically
diverse. Educators need to minimize use of labels (and their resulting connotations) and
practice sound research-based teaching to benefit the greatest number of students.
The most prominent gap in the literature is found in DI‘s willingness to acknowledge
diversity but not in providing practical how-to pedagogy for teachers to follow. It is
hoped that this article will serve to begin filling this gap with specific classroom
examples. Another significant gap is found in CRTs literature and research addressing
linguistic diversity. Although the case study was in settings serving large numbers of
ELLs, there are still significant voids in ways in which CRT can better include teaching
practices that respond to different levels of language acquisition. Further research is
needed in both areas, with special emphasis on theory-to-practice approaches, to best
reach and teach ELLs when teachers do not speak students‘ home languages.
In this article, I attempt to reconcile seemingly distinct teaching practices for ELLs, other
culturally and linguistically diverse students, and academically diverse students in U.S.
schools. In a closer look at the theories underlying CRT and DI, a comparison of the
approaches reveals similarities and differences that shed light on the most appropriate
teaching practices for CLD learners. Even though indicators for teaching CLD learners
do not include information specific to using assessment as a teaching tool or mandated
standardized testing guidelines, research suggests that attention to assessment is
imperative to the success of CLD students in schools (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Tharp,
Estrada, Dalton, & Yamaguchi, 2000), including factors critical to school performance,
such as motivation, perceptions, attitudes, and inclusion (Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, &
Tharp, 2003).
The best teaching practices are those that consider all learners in a classroom setting and
pay close attention to differences inherent to academic, cultural, linguistic, and
socioeconomic diversity. Through a closer examination of two different, seemingly
distinct theoretical models that have rarely been linked or reconciled, educators may be
able to determine what is appropriate for particular groups of students in particular
classrooms in particular locales. Further research on the application of these approaches
in classrooms is needed to further substantiate assumptions made in this article. It is my
hope that this work inspires educators to broaden their perspectives on DI, complemented
by more relevant instruction appropriate for CLD learners. In implementing school
reform efforts to improve student achievement, reconciliation of best teaching practices
and the creation of hybrid pedagogies are critical in addressing a future of an increasingly
diverse country and global community.
References
Abrahams, R. D., & Troike, R. C. (Eds.). (1972). Language and cultural diversity in
American education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Allan, S. (1991). Ability grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping
and the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 60–65.
Aragon, J. (1973). An impediment to cultural pluralism: Culturally deficient educators
attempting to teach culturally different children. In M. D. Stent, W. R. Hazard, & H. N.
Rivlin (Eds.), Cultural pluralism in education: A mandate for change (pp. 77–84). New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz A. O. (Eds.). (2002). English language learners with special
education needs (pp. 133–157). Washington, DC, and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied
Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1997). Building a knowledge base on culturally diverse
students with learning disabilities: The need to enrich research with a sociocultural
perspective. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 80–81.
Au, K. H., & Kawakami, A. J. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E. R.
Hollins, J. E. King, & W.
C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 5–
23). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Baca, L., & Cervantes, H. (Eds.). (2004). The bilingual special education interface (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Banks, J. A. (1975). Teaching ethnic studies: Key issues and concepts. Social Studies,
66(3), 107-113.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural
education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., et al. (2001).
Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural.
Phi Delta Kappan, 83,196–203.
Berger, S. L. (1991). Differentiating curriculum for gifted students. Reston, VA.: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC ED342175). Retrieved
February 22, 2007, from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=tru
e&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED342175&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric
_accno&accno=ED342175
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain (n. pag.). New York: Longmans,
Green.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.
Chamot, A. U. (1995). Implementing the cognitive academic language approach: CALLA
in Arlington, Virginia. Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 379–394.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Cuban, L. (1972). Ethnic content and ―White‖ instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 53, 270–
273.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that
work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children. New York: New York Press.
Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R. S., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R.G. (2003). Five standards and
standard achievement. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1(1), 1–24.
Feldhusen, H. J. (1993). Individualized teaching of the gifted in regular classrooms. In C.
J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education, vol 3: Programs for the gifted in
regular classrooms (pp. 263–273). Austin TX: PRO-ED.
Feldhusen, J. (1989). Program models for gifted education. In J. Feldhusen, J. Van
Tassel-Baska, & K.
Seeley (Eds.), Excellence in educating the gifted (pp. 103–122). Denver, CO: Love
Publishing.
Feldhusen, J., Hansen, J., & Kennedy, D. (1989). Curriculum development for GCT
teachers. GCT, 12(6), 1219.
Forbes, J. A. (1973). Teaching Native American values and cultures. In Teaching ethnic
studies: Concepts and strategies (pp. 200–219). Washington, DC: National Council for
the Social Studies.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: culture, power, and liberation (D. Macedo,
Trans.). South Hadley, MA: Bergin.
Fung, G. (1998). Meeting the instructional needs of Chinese American and Asian English
language development and at-risk students. In V. Ooka Pang & L. L. Cheng (Eds.),
Struggling to be heard: The unmet needs of Asian Pacific American children (197–221).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi
Delta Kappan, 77, 200–203, 206–209.
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Gay, G. (1975). Organizing and designing culturally pluralistic curriculum. Educational
Leadership, 33, 176–183.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Glesne, C. (2005). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Goldstein, L. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-
construction of mind.
American Educational Research Journal, 36, 647–673.
Golnick, D., & Chinn, C. (2004). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society.
Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., Floyd-Tennery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., & Amanti, C.
(1993). Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households. Urban Education, 2, 443–
470.
Guild, P. B., & Garger, S. (1998). What is differentiated instruction? In marching to
different drummers (2nd ed., p. 2). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or
repertoires of practice? Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications
for UDL implementation. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from the Access Center Web site:
http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/udl/diffinstruction.asp
Heacox, D. (2001). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Minneapolis,
MN: Freespirit.
Holloway, J. H. (2000). Preparing teachers for differentiated instruction. Educational
Leadership, 58, 82–83.
Irvine, J. J. (2002). In search of wholeness: African American teachers and their
culturally specific classroom practices. New York: Palgrave.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Ensuring diversity is positive: Cooperative
community, constructive conflict, and civic values. In J. S. Thousand, R. A. Villa, & A. I.
Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: The practical guide to empowering
students, teachers, and families (2nd ed., pp. 197–208). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Jordan, C. (1995). Creating cultures of schooling: Historical and conceptual background
of the KEEP/rough rock project. The Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 83–100.
Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1997). So why bother? The usefulness of applied science to the
general public. Brainstorm: A Journal of Mind and Brain Science, 3(1), 2–5.
King, J. (1994). The purpose of schooling for African American children: Including
cultural knowledge. In
E. R. Hollins, J. E. King, & W. C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations:
Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 25–66). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives: Preparing teachers to teach African
American students. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 206–214.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in
diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction. American Secondary Education
32(3), 34–62.
Litton, E. F. (1999). Learning in America: The Filipino-American sociocultural
perspective. In C. Park & M.
M. Chi (Eds.), Asian-American education: Prospects and challenges (pp. 131–154).
Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies
for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (1989). Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible
programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (Vol. 2). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
McCarty, T. L. (2002). A place to be Navajo: Rough rock and the struggle for self-
determination in indigenous schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moll, L. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of
sociohistorical psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moll, L. (1992). Literacy research into communities and classrooms: A sociocultural
approach. In R. Beach, J. Green, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives in
literacy research (pp. 47–73). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into
Practice, 31, 132–141.
Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social
contexts for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319–348).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Morelli, G., Rogoff, B., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Cultural variation in children's access to
work or involvement in specialized child-focused activities. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 27, 264–274.
Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural
education (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of races, social class, and tracking
on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Obiakor, F. E. (2007). Multicultural special education: effective intervention for today‘s
schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42, 148–155.
Ooka Pang, V. (2005). Multicultural education: A caring-centered approach (2nd ed.).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Padron, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1999). Classroom observations of the five standards of
effective teaching in urban classrooms with English language learners. Teaching and
Change, 7, 79–100.
Padron, Y. N., Waxman, H. C., & Rivera, H. H. (2002). Educating Hispanic students:
Effective instructional practices (Practitioner Brief No. 5). Retrieved October 10, 2004,
from Center for Applied Linguistics Web site:
http://www.cal.org/crede/Pubs/PracBrief5.htm
Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2005). Teaching and learner variation. In P. Tomlinson & P.
Winne (Eds.), Pedagogy: Teaching for learning. Monograph series II: Psychological
aspects of education (No. 3, pp. 47–69). Leicester, England: British Psychological
Society.
Rivera, C., & Zehler, A. M. (1991). Assuring the academic success of language minority
students: Collaboration in teaching and learning. Journal of Education, 173, 52–77.
Santamaría, L. J. (2003, March). Multicultural education, English language learners, and
academic achievement in elementary school: Moving theory into practice. Paper
presented at the 2003 American Educational Research Association annual meeting,
Chicago, IL.
Santamaría, L. J., Fletcher, T. V., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Effective pedagogy for English
language learners in inclusive classrooms. In A. Ortiz & A. Artiles (Eds.), English
language learners with special education needs (pp. 133–157). Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics (CAL).
Santamaría, L. J., & Thousand, J. A. (2004). Collaboration, co-teaching, and
differentiated instruction a process-oriented approach to whole schooling. International
Journal of Whole Schooling, 1(1), 13–27.
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis (Report No. 1). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for
Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and achievement in elementary schools: A best-
evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471–499.
Smith, G. P. (1998). Common sense about uncommon knowledge: The knowledge bases
for diversity. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strong, R., Perini, M., Silver, H., & Thomas, E. (2004). Creating a differentiated
mathematics classroom. Educational Leadership 61(5). Retrieved May 2, 2004, from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/200402/toc.html
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, and World.
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamaguchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed:
Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social contexts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Theroux, P. (2001). Enhance learning with technology: Differentiating instruction.
Retrieved September 10, 2007, from
http://members.shaw.ca/priscillatheroux/differentiating.html
Tomlinson, C.A. (1995). Differentiating instruction for advanced learners in the mixed-
ability middle school classroom. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and
Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED389141)
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. Reston,
VA: ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED443572)
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
(2nd ed.) Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom:
Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: A call for
differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52–55.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1989). Appropriate curriculum for the gifted. In J. Feldhusen, J.
Van Tassel-Baska, & K. Seeley (Eds.), Excellence in educating the gifted (pp. 175–191).
Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 68–72.
Vaughn, S., Bos, C., & Schumm, J. (2000). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk
students in the general education classroom (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes (M. Cole, V.
John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Waldron, N., & McCleskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on
students with mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395–405.
Weinstein, R. S. (1996). High standards in a tracked system of schooling: For which
students and with what educational supports? Educational Researcher, 25(8), 16–19.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press..
Winebrener, S. (1992). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN:
Free Spirit.
Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 111 Number 1, 2009, p. -
http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 15210, Date Accessed: 8/6/2008 10:05:47 AM
![Culturally Responsive Differentiated Instruction Narrowing Gaps Between Best Pedagogical Practices Benefiting All Learners[1]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5572091e497959fc0b8be078/culturally-responsive-differentiated-instruction-narrowing-gaps-between-best-pedagogical-practices-benefiting-all-learners1.jpg)
